Bush signs new law: it's now federal crime to annoy someone via internet

[Amaryllis]

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

By Declan McCullagh

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

<snip>

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

For the rest:
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html


Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Zinfandel]

1. Step One! In their quest to silence progressives getting out the truth...

via the internet...

Their goal is controlling the Internet as they own & control the voting, the media and our phone lines...

Who doesn't believe BushCo isn't a true one party fascist regime we now live under?

All based on speading and pounding away with FEAR!

[arcane1]

2. I intend to annoy George W Bush (if he's reading this)

Bush- you are a limp-dicked, illiterate (meaning one who cannot read, FYI), drug-addled mama's boy, who probably still wears diapers and has sexual intercourse with "pilly" on a regular basis


bring it on

[MadMaddie]

4. Bwahhhaaa.....

oooh...I just got a side cramp from laughing so hard!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[arcane1]

10. I'm half tempted to email that text to the White House

I know he won't read it, but it would at least be considered as "intended" for him, anyway

[MadMaddie]

13. Just make sure to id yourself

Send a picture, your address etc....oh wait they already have that since they are spying on us anyway!!

[arcane1]

17. fuck that

I'll do it as anonymously as possible, just on principle

in a free country, I should be allowed to imply that the president fucks his favourite pillow without having to reveal my identity :)

[MadMaddie]

21. Dammit...now I have a laugh cramp in my other side..

:rofl: :rofl:

[Orrex]

6. I thought "arcane1" was your real name, though...

The statute apparently only applies if you don't give your real name...

[Lars39]

11. LOL

water down the wrong pipe, but it was worth it. :rofl:

[Quakerfriend]

3. Does this translate into:

Those with DU user names who annoy freeps can do jail time?

[MadMaddie]

7. It also translates to...

The Freepers on their hate sites can and will increase their annoyance, hate mongering etc will not do jail time!!

[arcane1]

14. does that mean we can report a troll's ip address to the FBI?

:shrug:


something tells me these guys are gonna start getting a LOT of complaints about "annoyances"

[Amaryllis]

8. Kinda sounds that way, doesn't it?

[tmooses]

5. fascism is on the march.

[onenote]

18. Damn those fascists like Conyers, Franks and the ACLU

Pardon my sarcasm, but before anyone runs around yelling "fascists" they might want to learn something about the history of this provision. It was included in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act when it was introduced in June 2005. In the House, more than half of the 108 co-sponsors of the bill were Democrats (including Conyers and Frank). In the Senate, there were nearly 60 co-sponsors, 40 of them Democrats. The ACLU sent a letter to the Hill endorsing the legislation. What it does, substantively, is modify an existing prohibition related to telephone calls made anonymously and with intent to annoy, harass, etc. The purpose of the amendment is to extend existing law to calls made via VOiP. Admittedly, whenever Congress tries to legislate regarding technology, there is a better than 50-50 chance they're going to screw it up, but its not as draconian as some people have claimed.

onenote

[eggman67]

23. I have a feeling this will fall on deaf ears

It's so much more fun to run around yelling "fascists" ;)

[Amaryllis]

26. There was an earlier version that was good, but they changed the wording

at the last minute. REad the article:
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm.

[onenote]

35. Simply Not True. The language never changed.

Here's are links to the VAWA Reauthorization Act as introduced in the House and in the Senate and to the version enacted in December. In the House it was section 109 and in the Senate it was section 113. And the final version also is Section 113. Compare them. They are identical.

House:(HR 2876) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109lv4wXx:e52544:

Senate (S.1197)http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109SzqqZO:e69060:

The version enacted into law in December: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109HJ9EDq:e76829: (scroll down to section 113)


All three versions are identical down to the last comma. I could add links to the versions passed in September and you'd see they are idential as well.

onenote

[RebelOne]

9. Well, let's look at the good side of it.

This could help eliminate a lot of spam.

[ET Awful]

12. Does that mean we can have any freeper troll who pokes their head

up on DU arrested?

[leftstreet]

15. Why did our elected ass clowns in Congress let this pass?

"To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16."

[onenote]

28. no rail greasing needed

The description of how the provision came to be law is so off-base and inconsistent with reality as to be laughable. This provision was part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization Act from the moment it was introduced. It had over 100 Democrats as co-sponsors in the House and some 40 Democrats sponsored it the Senate. No effort was ever made to strike this provision and it was not mentioned by the ACLU in their letter strongly endorsing the legislation. As a stand-alone bill (not part of the DOJ Authorization) the legislation passed the Senate by voice vote and with over 400 votes in the House. The reason it was included in the DOJ bill was that there were differences in the House and Senate bills (unrelated to the cyberstalking provision) and there simply wasn't enough time at the end of the year to move it back through both houses on its own; so, as is often the case, it was tacked onto another piece of legislation.

Since voting against VAWA was not politicallly tenable when it was a stand alone bill, the notion that it had to be slipped into another "must pass" bill to avoid a problem is roll on the floor funny/stupid.

onenote

[leftstreet]

37. How A Bill Becomes A Law - indeed

Thanks for the explanation.
The process is insane.

[Amaryllis]

30. read post # 26

[onenote]

36. read post 35

Post 26 is wrong.

onenote

[BlueEyedSon]

16. Unconstitutional.

[Amaryllis]

32. But remember, Bush thinks the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of

paper"

[sam sarrha]

19. WHOOO. !!! i just felt a Fascist crawl up my ass hole..!!!

[onenote]

24. which fascist was it, conyers or franks?

Because they're two of the "fascists" that supported this legislation. Next time, you might want to read up on something before posting about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2448719&mesg_id=2448769

[sam sarrha]

29. just my cynicism spurting out, does that put an end to spam also..??

i under stood that when i saw it, but it in a fascist state such as ours with all the Gestapo listening in, i expect the worst.

in essence it is WAY past the time it needed to be instituted. with people posting stalker pictures of their X-girlfriends and celebrities phone photo-sex etc., there needs to be some privacy limits.

[Botany]

20. So would this be an example?

e mail I sent to Jim Dyke who had just helped set up a phony
group called Americans for Voting Rights (formed 3-17-05 in Texas
testified 3-22-05 in front of Bob Ney's phony show trial looking into
the election problems in Ohio in 04) Jim was legal consul to the RNC &
Bush Cheney 04

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:38 AM
To: jim@dyke
Subject: Are you connected to ........... ?

Creative Response Concepts
Swift Boats?
Karl Rove?
"The Texas Strike Force

From: jim@dyke ******
Subject: RE: Are you connected to ........... ?
Date: March 24, 2005 9:46:29 AM EST
To: *********

No. you?

BTW he is connected to all of them

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/map_conservative_ties_raw_story_415.htm

[RebelOne]

22. Too bad it doesn't apply to those Nigerian scam letters.

I guess this law wouldn't apply to annoying e-mail from other countries. It sure would be a good way to put those crooks out of commission.

[dusmcj]

25. directed communications vs. publication

there are amusing legal issues here.

For one thing, the law which was amended was intended to protect victims of electronic stalking. It revolved around prohibiting inappropriate communications directed at a particular party. I.e. the object of aggression was the receiver of the message.

Bulletin boards and other internet public fora by contrast usually involve criticism of third parties - like on DU, "hey that Cheney, he's a Big Dick, eh?" I.e. this is a communication between two parties about a third, and negative content in it is directed at that third. Since it's a public forum the suggestion is that copyright law may apply (since your posts here are essentially publication) and that precedent from there will govern whether anonymous or pseudonymous publication can be constrained.

It seems perfectly appropriate for the expert community to seize on this as another instance in which busybodies asserting that their "common sense" qualifies them to have opinions worth considering on subjects they know little about, are using legislation to control things they don't understand, and creating Constitutionally unviable law in the process.

Somehow I don't see anybody worrying _too_ much about what they say. Which must spoil Big Dick's party, fond as he is of mouthing off "you have to watch what you say, there's a war on". But then as we all know, he can go fuck himself.

[longship]

27. Helllllp! The Freepers are annoying me.

Just existing, they annoy me.
:evilgrin:

[Vinca]

31. So what exactly does "annoy" mean?

I'm sure about 99% of the posts on this site annoy someone. Maybe we should start posting under our real names before we find ourselves counting mice at Gitmo together. (Shred-shred-shred, shred-shred-shred, more of the Constitution going into the grinder.)

[Scout1071]

33. Uh-oh. Looks like they are going to have to take down whitehouse.gov

And all the repulsive RW websites.

[northzax]

34. BREAKING NEWS:

In a new agreement with the federal government, the "alert" button on DU now links directly to your local FBI officek, as well as the local office of the poster you are alerting on. In cooperation with DU management, the FBI will then determine who is the annoyer and who the annoyee. the Winner will get a free ticket to the tropical paradise of the government's choice.

[Neil Lisst]

38. Now we know what those new Halliburton prisons are for.

This statute is the classic law that can be enforced selectively.

It can be used to attack anyone on any site whom some government official or spook feels is "annoying" them.

If they're already using the fallacious application of the Sedition Act to grab a nurse's computer, imagine the things they can do with this new statute. This is aimed directly at limiting the ability of the people to communicate freely online with one another, and yet another example of the march towards the world of 1984.